Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 14, 2013 6:12 PM


In article <QOdnXX2D5CIp9_MnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 2:30 PM, WM wrote: > > > > It is so simple: > > > > Here it is again. > > It is not possible to advance to a logic > of parts of individuals as individuals > without the (correct, geometric) version > of Leibniz' principle of the identity > of indiscernibles interpreted with Cantor's > intersection theorem pertaining to > nested sequences of closed sets > having vanishing diameter. > > It is not possible to "quantize" the > tails of those infinite sequences with > a general distinction between "closed" > and "open" sets in a topology without > being informed through the situation > described above. > > Naming by virtue of definite description > is an inherently infinitary process > because of the epistemic nature of > definition. So, any use of a singular > term in any language act subject to > the Fregean or Russellian analyses > presupposes a completed infinity. > > And, that includes references to > infinity via potential infinity.
Lovely! 



